Use Of Wrong Form Costs A Tax Refund

Let’s talk about the following Regulation:

26 CFR § 301.6402-2

Claims for credit or refund

(b) Grounds set forth in claim.

(1) No refund or credit will be allowed after the expiration of the statutory period of limitation applicable to the filing of a claim therefor except upon one or more of the grounds set forth in a claim filed before the expiration of such period. The claim must set forth in detail each ground upon which a credit or refund is claimed and facts sufficient to apprise the Commissioner of the exact basis thereof. The statement of the grounds and facts must be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury. A claim which does not comply with this paragraph will not be considered for any purpose as a claim for refund or credit.

That last sentence is critical and – potentially – punishing.

I suspect the most common “claim for refund” is an amended return. There are other ways to claim, however, depending on the tax at issue. For example, businesses requested refunds of federal payroll taxes under the employee retention credit (“ERC”) program by filing Form 941-X. You or I would (more likely) file our claim for refund on Form 1040-X. 

File a 1040-X and the tax “variance doctrine” comes into play. This means that the filing must substantially inform the IRS of the grounds and reasons that one is requesting a refund. Both parties have responsibilities in tax administration. A taxpayer must adequately apprise so the IRS can consider the request without further investigation or the time and expense of litigation.

Here is a Court on this point in Charter Co v United States:

The law requires a taxpayer “to do more than give the government a good lead based on the government’s ability to infer interconnectedness.”

Another way to say this is that the IRS is not required to go all Sherlock Holmes to figure out what you are talking about. 

Let’s look at the Shleifer case.

Scott Shleifer was a partner in an investment firm. He travelled domestically and abroad to investigate new and existing investment opportunities. Scott was not a fan of commercial airfare, so he used his personal plane. He waived off reimbursement from the partnership for his air travel.

COMMENT: Scott is different from you or me.

The Shleifers filed their 2014 joint individual tax return. Whereas it is not stated in the case, we can assume that their 2014 return was extended to October 15, 2015.

In October 2018 they filed an amended return requesting a refund of almost $1.9 million.

COMMENT: And there you have your claim. In addition, notice that the two Octobers were three years apart. Remember that the statute of limitations for amending a return is three years. Coincidence? No, no coincidence.

What drove the amended return was depreciation on the plane. The accountant put the depreciation on Schedule C. It was – in fact – the only number on the Schedule C.

In July 2020 the IRS selected the amended return for audit.

COMMENT: A refund of almost $1.9 million will do that.

The Shleifer’s accountant represented them throughout the audit.

In March 2022 the IRS denied the refund.

Why?

Look at the Schedule C header above. It refers to a profit or loss “from business.” Scott was not “in business” with his plane. It instead was his personal plane. He did not sell tickets for flights on his plane. He did not rent or lease the plane for other pilots to use. It was a personal asset, a toy if you will, and perhaps comparable to a very high-end car. Granted, he sometimes used the plane for business purposes, but it did not cease being his toy. What it wasn’t was a business.

The accountant put the depreciation on the wrong form.

As a partner, Scott would have received a Schedule K-1 from the investment partnership. The business income thereon would have been reported on his Schedule E. While the letters C and E are close together in the alphabet, these forms represent different things. For example:

·       There must be a trade or business to file a Schedule C. Lack of said trade or business is a common denominator in the “hobby loss” cases that populate tax literature.

·       A partnership must be in a trade or business to file Schedule E. A partner himself/herself does not need to be active or participating. The testing of trade or business is done at the partnership - not the partner - level.

·       A partner can and might incur expenses on behalf of a partnership. White there are requirements (it’s tax: there are always requirements), a partner might be able to show those expenses along with the Schedule K-1 numbers on his/her Schedule E. This does have the elegance of keeping the partnership numbers close together on the same form.   

After the audit went south, the accountant explained to the IRS examiner that he was now preparing, and Scott was now reporting the airplane expenses as unreimbursed partner expenses. He further commented that the arithmetic was the same whether the airplane expenses were reported on Schedule C or on Schedule E. The examiner seemed to agree, as he noted in his report that the depreciation might have been valid for 2014 if only the accountant had put the number on the correct form.

You know the matter went to litigation.

The Shleifers had several arguments, including the conversation the accountant had with the examiner (doesn’t that count for something?); that they met the substantive requirements for a depreciation deduction; and that the IRS was well aware that their claim for refund was due to depreciation on a plane.

The Court nonetheless decided in favor of the IRS.

Why?

Go back to the last sentence of Reg 301.6402-2(b)(1):

A claim which does not comply with this paragraph will not be considered for any purpose as a claim for refund or credit.

The Shleifers did not file a valid refund claim that the Court could review.

Here is the Court:

Although the mistake was costly and the result is harsh …”

Yes, it was.

What do I think?

You see here the ongoing tension between complying with the technical requirements of the Code and substantially complying with its spirit and intent.

I find it hard to believe that the IRS – at some point – did not realize that the depreciation deduction related to a business in which Scott was a partner. However, did the IRS have the authority to “move” the depreciation from one form to another? Then again, they did not have to. The accountant was right: the arithmetic worked out the same. All the IRS had to do was close the file and … move on.

But the IRS also had a point. The audit of Schedule C is different from that of Schedule E. For example, we mentioned earlier that there are requirements for claiming partnership expenses paid directly by a partner. Had the examiner known this, he likely would have wanted partnership documents, such as any reimbursement policy for these expenses. Granted, the examiner may have realized this as the audit went along, but the IRS did not know this when it selected the return for audit. I personally suspect the IRS would not have audited the return had the depreciation been reported correctly as a partner expense. 

And there you have the reason for the variance doctrine: the IRS has the right to rely on taxpayer representations in performing its tax administration. The IRS would have relied on these representations when it issued a $1.9 million refund – or selected the return for audit.

What a taxpayer cannot do is play bait and switch.

Our case this time was Shleifer v United States, U.S. District Court, So District Fla, Case #24-CV-80713-Rosenberg.

Blowing An Estate Tax Deduction

 

Let’s talk about the Estate of Martin W. Griffin.

Martin Griffin (Martin) was married to Maria Creel.

Martin created a revocable trust known as the Martin W. Griffin Trust.

COMMENT: A revocable trust means that the settlor (Martin in this case) can undo the trust. When that happens, the trust is disregarded and Martin and his revocable trust are considered the same person for tax purposes. The classic revocable trust is a “living trust,” which has no effect until one dies. Its purpose is not tax-driven at all and is instead to avoid probate.

Martin next created the MCC Irrevocable Trust.

COMMENT: Irrevocable means that Martin cannot undo the trust. He might be able to tweak a thing or two at the edges, but he cannot do away with the trust itself.

The Irrevocable Trust had the following language in the trust agreement:

The trust shall distribute the sum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to the trustee then serving …. for the benefit of Maria C. Creel. From this bequest, the trustee … shall pay to Maria C. Creel a monthly distribution, as determined by Maria and Trustee to be a reasonable amount, not to exceed $9,000 ….”

You see the word “Estate” in the case name. The issue in this case is estate tax, and it involves passing assets at death to one’s surviving spouse. There are two general ways to do this:

·       You simply transfer the asset to the surviving spouse.

An example here is a principal residence. The deed is in both spouse’s names. When you die, the house transfers directly to her (I am assuming you are the husband). She can then do what she wants: she can keep the house, sell the house, rent it or whatever. She has unfettered control over the house.

·       You transfer a right – but not all the rights – to the asset.

Let’s stay with the above example. You instead transfer a life estate to your wife. Upon her death the house goes to your children from your first marriage. She no longer has unfettered control over the asset. She cannot sell the house, for example. She has some – but not all – incidents of ownership.

The reason this is important is that the estate tax will allow you to deduct category (1) assets from your taxable estate, but category (2) assets have to go through an additional hoop to get there.

Here is the relevant Code section:

26 U.S. Code § 2056 - Bequests, etc., to surviving spouse

(7) Election with respect to life estate for surviving spouse  

(A) In general In the case of qualified terminable interest property—  

(i) for purposes of subsection (a), such property shall be treated as passing to the surviving spouse, and

(ii) for purposes of paragraph (1)(A), no part of such property shall be treated as passing to any person other than the surviving spouse.  

(B) Qualified terminable interest property defined For purposes of this paragraph—  

(i)In general The term “qualified terminable interest property” means property—

(I) which passes from the decedent,

(II) in which the surviving spouse has a qualifying income interest for life, and

(III) to which an election under this paragraph applies.

Section 2056 addresses the hoops we are talking about. If you are transferring less than total and unfettered rights to an asset, you want to make sure that you are transferring enough to qualify the asset as “qualified terminable interest property.” If you do, you get a subtraction for estate tax purposes. If you do not, there is no subtraction. 

It takes a lot to get to an estate tax in 2025 (given the lifetime exemption), but – if you do – the rate ramps to 40% rather quickly.  

Back to Martin.  

The Irrevocable Trust transferred enough to qualify as qualified terminable interest property.

Here is the Court:

The $2 million bequest is not QTIP. It is terminable interest property that does not qualify for the marital deduction and is includible in the estate.”

Huh? What happened?

Go back to (B)(iii) above:

(III) to which an election under this paragraph applies.

How do you make the election?

You include the asset on Schedule M of Form 706 (that is, the estate tax return):

That’s it. It is not complicated, but it must be done. The Code requires it.

Someone missed this while preparing Martin W Griffin’s estate tax return.

Yep, I expect a malpractice suit.

A Current Individual Tax Audit

 

We have an IRS audit at Galactic Command. It is of a self-employed individual. The self-employeds have maintained a reasonable audit rate, even as other individual audit rates have plummeted in recent years.

I was speaking with the examiner on Friday, lining up submission dates for records and documents. We set tentative dates, but she reminded me that Congress was going into budget talks this weekend.  Depending on the resolution, she might be furloughed next week. No prob, we will play it by ear.

This is a relatively new client for us. We did not prepare the records or the tax returns for the two years under audit. We requested underlying records, but there was little there for the first year and only slightly more for the second. We then did a cash analysis, knowing that the IRS would be doing the same.

COMMENT: The IRS will commonly request all twelve bank statements for a business-related bank account. The examiner adds up the deposits for the twelve months and compares the total to revenues reported on the tax return. If the tax return is higher, the IRS will probably leave the matter alone. If the tax return is lower, however, the IRS will want to know why.

We had a problem with the analysis for the first year: our numbers had no resemblance to the return filed. Our numbers were higher across the board: higher deposits, higher disbursements, higher excess of deposits over disbursements.

Higher by a lot.

The accountant asked me: do you think …?

Nope, not for a moment.

Implicit here is fraud.

There are two types of tax fraud: civil and criminal. Yes, I get it: if you have criminal, you are virtually certain to have civil, but that is not our point. Our point is that there is no statute of limitations on civil fraud. The IRS could go back a decade or more - if they wanted to.

I do not see fraud here. I do see incompetence. I think someone started using a popular business accounting software, downloading bank statements and whatnot to release their inner accountant. There are easy errors to one not familiar: you do not download all months for an account; you do not download all the accounts; you fail to account for credit cards; you fail to account for cash transactions.

OK, that last one could be a problem, if significant.

The matter reminded me of a famous tax case.

It is easy to understand someone committing fraud on his/her tax return. Put too much in, leave too much out. Do it deliberately and with malintent and you might have fraud.

Question: can you be responsible for your tax preparer’s fraud?

Vincent Allen was a UPS driver in Memphis. He used a professional preparer (Goosby) for 1999 and 2000.  Allen did the usual: he gave Goosby his W-2, his mortgage interest statement, property taxes and whatnot. Standard stuff.

Goosby went to town on miscellaneous itemized deductions; He goosed numbers for a pager, computer, meals, mileage and so forth. He was creative.

The IRS came down hard, understandably.

They also wanted fraud penalties.

Allen had an immediate defense: the three-year statute had run.

The IRS was curt: the three years does not apply if there is fraud.

Allen argued the obvious:

How was I supposed to know?

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Court looked at the following Code section:

 § 6501 Limitations on assessment and collection

(c)  Exceptions.

(1)  False return.

In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time.

The Court noted there was no requirement that the “intent to evade” be the taxpayer’s.

The statute was open.

Allen owed tax.

The IRS - in a rare moment of mercy - did not press for penalties. It just wanted the tax, and the Court agreed.

The Allen decision reminds us that there is some responsibility when selecting a tax preparer. One is expected to review his/her return, and – if it seems too good …. Well, you know the rest of that cliche.

Do I think our client committed fraud?

Not for a moment.

Might the IRS examiner think so, however?

It crossed my mind. We’ll see.

Our case this time was Allen v Commissioner, 128. T.C. 37.

There Is No Tax Relief If You Are Robbed

 

Some tax items have been around for so long that perhaps it would be best to leave them alone.

I’ll give you an example: employees deducting business mileage on their car.

Seems sensible. You tax someone on their work income. That someone incurs expenses to perform that work. Fairness and equity tell you that one should be able to offset the expenses of generating the income against such income.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) did away with that deduction, however. Mind you, the TCJA itself expires in 2025, so we may see this deduction return for 2026.

There are reasons why Congress eliminated the deduction, we are told. They increased the standard deduction, for example, and one could not claim the mileage anyway if one’s itemized deductions were less than the standard deduction. True statement.

Still, it seems to me that Congress could have left the deduction intact. Many if not most would not use it (because of the larger standard deduction), but the high-mileage warriors would still have the deduction if they needed it.

Here’s another:  a tree falls on your house. Or you get robbed.

This has been a tax break since Carter had liver pills.

Used to be.

Back to the TCJA. Personal casualty and theft losses are deductible only if the loss results from a federally declared disaster.

Reread what I just said.

What does theft have to do with a federally declared disaster?

Nothing, of course.

I would make more sense to simply say that the TCJA did away with theft loss deductions.

Let’s talk about the Gomas case.

Dennis and Suzanne Gomas were retired and living their best life in Florida. Mr. G’s brother died, and in 2010 he inherited a business called Feline’s Pride. The business sold pet food online.

OK.

The business was in New York.

We are now talking about remote management. There are any numbers of ways this can go south.

His business manager in New York must have binged The Sopranos, as she was stealing inventory, selling customer lists, not supervising employees, and on and on.

Mr. G moved the business to Florida. His stepdaughter (Anderson) started helping him.

Good, it seems.

By 2015 Mr. G was thinking about closing the business but Anderson persuaded him to keep it open. He turned operations over to Anderson, although the next year (2016) he formally dissolved the company. Anderson kept whatever remained of the business.

In 2017 Anderson prevailed on the G’s to give her $20,000 to (supposedly) better run the business.

I get it. I too am a parent.

Anderson next told the Gs that their crooked New York business manager and others had opened merchant sub-accounts using Mr. G’s personal information. These reprobates were defrauding customers, and the bank wanted to hold the merchant account holder (read: Mr. G) responsible.

          COMMENT: Nope. Sounds wrong. Time to lawyer up.

Anderson convinced the G’s that she had found an attorney (Rickman), and he needed $125,000 at once to prevent Mr. G’s arrest.

COMMENT: For $125 grand, I am meeting with Rickman.

The G’s gave Anderson the $125,000.

But the story kept on.

There were more business subaccounts. Troubles and tribulations were afoot and abounding. It was all Rickman could do to keep Mr. G out of prison. Fortunately, the G’s had Anderson to help sail these treacherous and deadly shoals.

The G’s never met Rickman. They were tapping all their assets, however, including retirement accounts. They were going broke.

Anderson was going after that Academy award. She managed to drag in friends of the family for another $200 grand or so. That proved to be her downfall, as the friends were not as inclined as her parents to believe. In fact, they came to disbelieve. She had pushed too far.

The friends reached out to Rickman. Sure enough, there was an attorney named Rickman, but he did not know and was not representing the G’s. He had no idea about the made-up e-mail address or merchant bank or legal documents or other hot air.

Anderson was convicted to 25 years in prison.

Good.

The G’s tried to salvage some tax relief out of this. For example, in 2017 they had withdrawn almost $1.2 million from their retirement accounts, paying about $410 grand in tax.

Idea: let’s file an amended return and get that $410 grand back.

Next: we need a tax Code-related reason. How about this: we send Anderson a 1099 for $1.1 million, saying that the monies were sent to her for expenses supposedly belonging to a prior business.

I get it. Try to show a business hook. There is a gigantic problem as the business had been closed, but you have to swing the bat you are given.

The IRS of course bounced the amended return.

Off to Court they went.

You might be asking: why didn’t the G’s just say what really happened – that they were robbed?

Because the TCJA had done away with the personal theft deduction. Unless it was presidentially-declared, I suppose.

So, the G’s were left bobbing in the water with much weaker and ultimately non-persuasive arguments to power their amended return and its refund claim.

Even the judge was aghast:

Plaintiffs were the undisputed victims of a complicated theft spanning around two years, resulting in the loss of nearly $2 million dollars. The thief — Mrs. Gomas’s own daughter and Mr. Gomas’s stepdaughter — was rightly convicted and is serving a lengthy prison sentence. The fact that these elderly Plaintiffs are now required to pay tax on monies that were stolen from them seems unjust.

Here is Court shade at the IRS:

In view of the egregious and undisputed facts presented here, it is unfortunate that the IRS is unwilling — or believes it lacks the authority — to exercise its discretion and excuse payment of taxes on the stolen funds.

There is even some shade for Congress:

It is highly unlikely that Congress, when it eliminated the theft loss deduction beginning in 2018, envisioned injustices like the case before this Court. Be that as it may, the law is clear here and it favors the IRS. Seeking to avoid an unjust outcome, Plaintiffs have attempted to recharacterize the facts from what they really are — a theft loss — to something else. Established law does not support this effort. The Court is bound to follow the law, even where, as here, the outcome seems unjust.

To be fair, Congress changed the law. The change was unfair to the G’s, but the Court could not substitute penumbral law over actual law.

The G’s were hosed.

Seriously, Congress should have left theft losses alone. The reason is the same as for employee mileage. The Code as revised for TCJA would make most of the provision superfluous, but at least the provision would exist for the most extreme or egregious situations.

COMMENT: I for one am hopeful that the IRS and G's will resolve this matter administratively. This is not a complementary tale for the IRS, and – frankly – they have other potentially disastrous issues at the moment. It is not too late, for example, for the IRS and G’s to work out an offer in compromise, a partial pay or a do-not-collect status. This would allow the IRS to resolve the matter quietly. Truthfully, they should have already done this and avoided the possible shockwaves from this case.

Our case this time was Gomas v United States, District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case 8:22-CV-01271.

Penalty Abatement For Preparer Errors

 

I was looking over a law review article weighing the pros and cons of different types of Tax Court decisions.

Nerd train, I admit.

But there is something here to talk about.

There are several types of Tax Court opinions. Some have precedential value, and some do not. Precedence means that a Court applies the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts.

One type is a Memorandum opinion. These tend to be heavily factual, and they involve relatively well-settled law.

Another is the Summary (or S) opinion. These involve a relatively modest amount of tax (currently $50 grand) and use a streamlined set of procedures.

The reason for different types of opinion is grounded in practicality. Memo opinions allow the Court to process more clear-cut cases without worrying about establishing unanticipated precedent. The S opinions allow taxpayers a forum without having to hire an attorney to navigate cumbersome Tax Court procedural rules.

I am looking at a case decided as a bench opinion. 

Think about the judge issuing an oral opinion right there and then and you have a bench opinion.

And these types can be combined. A judge may, for example, issue a bench opinion in a memo or S case.

I am looking at something I know all too well.

Mr. Trammer was an IT consultant.

Mrs. Trammer was a social worker.

Mr. Trammer worked primarily from home. Depending upon, he was paid as a W-2 employee or as a 1099 gig worker. He had an office-in-home and all that.

Mrs. Trammer was a W-2 employee. She drove around Michigan visiting childcare and foster care locations. She at times would purchase gifts for the kids.

She sounds like a good person.

They reported all kinds of deductions on their 2019 and 2020 returns: business deductions for the gig, employee business deductions for the social work, charitable deductions for the church.

If you recall, many itemized deductions were reduced or eliminated altogether beginning in 2018.

No surprise, the IRS disallowed a swath of deductions. Some – like employee business deductions – simply did not exist for the tax year at issue. Others – like office-in-home for the gig – had calculation errors.

Got it. They need to dig up documentation. They should immediately concede on the calculation error and employee expenses. The matter should be resolved as routine in correspondence exam.

Off to Tax Court they went.

Huh?

Upon reflection, this makes sense. The IRS and Covid did not play well together. They were not answering the phones over there. Faxing supporting documentation to the AUR Unit was often a joke. I suspect this matter went to Court by default.

Here we go:

The Trammers relied on a paid return preparer to prepare their returns for the years at issue. Although the individual return preparers identified on the 2019 and 2020 returns differed, the Trammers used the same preparation firm for both years.”

That does not sound like a CPA firm. Granted, I prepare only a fraction of returns I sign - staff accountants generally prepare - but I do review all returns before signing. 

Each year, they brought their records … who decided what items to report on the Trammers’ return and where.”

Yep.

The returns contained obvious errors such as reporting the same expense in multiple places.”

The old list-the-same-thing-over-and-over routine. Often these returns are not complex, but the preparer must be diligent when moving numbers. It consequently is common to give these returns to more experienced staff. Ideal would be to give the return to the same experienced staff every year.

The Court made short work of the returns.

Schedule C/Gig work

They failed to demonstrate the amount of expenses that they incurred or the business purposes for those expense, and they did not provide sufficient evidence from which the Court could formulate an estimate.”

Form 2106/employee business expenses

… the Trammers failed to substantiate the expenses Mrs. Trammer incurred in the conduct of her social work.”

Schedule A/Itemized Deductions

The Trammers failed to substantiate itemized deductions in excess of the standard deduction amounts that the Commissioner allowed…”

The IRS wanted penalties. They always do.

Not his time. Here is the Court:

The Trammers relied on a return preparer to whom they had been referred. They supplied the return preparer with necessary and accurate information each year, and the return preparer decided what to do with that information. The Trammers reasonably relied in good faith on their return preparer’s judgement. Accordingly, the section 6662 accuracy-related penalty does not apply for the years in issue.”

I am impressed, as I was expecting a rubber stamp.

What was different this time?

For one thing, Mr. Trammer showed up for the trial, and Mrs. Trammer participated via conference call. This gave them a chance to humanize their situation. While not conceding the errors, the Court did believe them when they said they tried. The Court, however, was not as kind to the preparer.

And remember: the next person cannot use this case (technically) as precedent in a future penalty. The Court had room to be lenient.

Our case this time was Trammer v Commissioner, TC Bench Order March 14, 2023.